Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

City of Grapevine v. Grapevine Pool Rd. Joint Venture – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In City of Grapevine v. Grapevine Pool Rd. Joint Venture, 804 S.W.2d 675 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1991, no writ), the plaintiff owned a tract of property at the intersection of State Highway 26 and Pool Road. 804 S.W.2d at 676.

In an effort to manage traffic flow, the City of Grapevine re-routed a portion of Pool Road and created a cul-de-sac at the end of the road. Id. at 676-77.

Plaintiff sued, alleging that the barricading of Pool Road along with the creation of a cul-de-sac amounted to a material and substantial impairment of his access. Id. at 677.

The appeals court noted that "one of two public streets may be closed without compensation to abutting landowners if the remaining street furnishes a suitable means of access to the piece of property." Id. at 678.

The court determined that the plaintiff's property retained unobstructed frontage along SH 26, thus furnishing a suitable means of access to the property. Id.

The court concluded that because the property "was never without access to a public road," the property had not suffered a material and substantial impairment. Id.